Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Narpat Surela Son Of Kishori Lal Surela vs The State Of Rajasthan on 20 December, 2024
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2024:RJ-JP:49565]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3567/2024
Narpat Surela Son Of Kishori Lal Surela, Aged About 29 Years,
Address Kumharo Ka Mohalla, Tehsil Bansur, Alwar (Rajasthan) -
301402.
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary,
Forest & Ors.
----Respondents
Connected With
1. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3326/2024
2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3568/2024
3. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3708/2024
4. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3724/2024
5. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4205/2024
6. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4300/2024
7. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5289/2024
8. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5480/2024
9. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5684/2024
10. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5744/2024
11. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5995/2024
12. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17601/2024
13. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17602/2024
14. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17603/2024
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tribhuvan Narayan Singh
Mr. Sukhdev Singh Solanki
Mr. Vishwanath Karan Rathore with
(Downloaded on 04/01/2025 at 12:28:06 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49565] (2 of 56) [CW-3567/2024]
Mr. Satya Prakash Sharma
Mr. Arvind Rana
Mr. R. B. Sharma, Ganthola
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Vyas, AAG with
Ms. Niti Jain Bhandari
Mr. Praveer Sharma &
Mr. Harsh Vardhan Katara
Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC
Mr. Akhil Simlote with
Mr. Ashvini Raj Tanwar &
Mr. Dikshant Jain
Mr. Prateek Mathur
Mr. Rajendra Kumar Salecha with
Ms. Tanisha Khubchandani,
Mr. Hitesh Kumar
Mr. Abhinav Srivastava &
Mr. Nikhil Kumawat
Mr. Raghu Nandan Sharma
Mr. Sandeep Pathak with
Ms. Jaya Pathak &
Mr. Akshat Sharma
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment
REPORTABLE
Reserved on : 17/10/2024 & 27.11.2024
Pronounced on: 20/12/2024
Parts Contents
A Prefatory Remarks
B Relevant Statues, Rules and Acts
C Factual narrative and background
D Submissions by the counsel representing the
petitioners
E Submissions by the counsel representing the
respondents
E.1 Submissions by the counsel representing the
respondent-State.
E.2 Submissions by the counsel representing the
respondent-RSPCB
E.3 Submissions by the counsel representing the
respondent-IBPS.
E.4 Submissions by the counsel representing the
respondent-Selected candidates who appeared as
interveners
F Issues and points of determination
G Annotations
(Downloaded on 04/01/2025 at 12:28:06 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49565] (3 of 56) [CW-3567/2024]
H Discussions and findings
Auxiliary findings
I Conclusion
J Directions
A. PREFATORY REMARKS
1. Considering the fact that the instant batch of writ
petitions warrant adjudication on common questions of law and
fact; with the consent of learned counsel appearing on behalf of all
the parties, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3567/2024 titled as
Narpat Surela vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors, is being taken
up as the lead petition. It is cautiously clarified that the instant
judgment shall be applicable on all the petitions connected
herein/henceforth on mutatis mutandis basis.
B. RELEVANT STATUES, RULES AND ACTS
Act, Statute or Rules Inter alia relevant
provision
Constitution of India Articles 14, 16, 21, 309, 311
The Right to Information Act, Sections 8(1)(d), 11
2005
The Rajasthan Transparency in Sections 3, 31
Public Procurement Act, 2012
The Rajasthan State Control Rules 2(b), 2(f), 6, 18, 25
Board Employees Service Rules
and Regulations, 1993
The Water (Prevention and Sections 4(f), 12, 18, 20, 21,
Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 22, 23, 24, 25, 35, 50, 62, 64
Air (Prevention And Control Of Section 54
Pollution) Act, 1981
The Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1988 Sections 3 and 39
and The Rajasthan Stamp Rules,
2004
(Downloaded on 04/01/2025 at 12:28:06 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49565] (4 of 56) [CW-3567/2024]
C. FACTUAL NARRATIVE AND BACKGROUND
2. The respondents vide advertisement dated 05.10.2023
invited applications from the eligible candidates for the post of
Junior Scientific Officer (JSO), Junior Environment Engineer (JEE)
and Legal Officer – II (LO-II). Subsequently, the respondents
issued a vigyapti dated 18.12.2023, corrigendum dated
01.02.2024 and information guidelines for the applicants. The said
examination (for JSO) was scheduled on 09.01.2024.
Consecutively, the provisional list of the shortlisted candidates for
document verification for the post of JSO was released on
23.02.2024 (provisional list for other posts were released in-
between 22.02.2024 and 24.02.2024). In the said list(s) the
respondents have also issued the category wise cut-off marks i.e.
qua GEN-UR, EWS, ST, BC and MBC along with the horizontal cut-
off marks with respect to the categories like Persons With
Disabilities and Ex-servicemen.
3. The controversy resulting to the instant petition(s)
arose when the petitioners did not find their name in the
provisional list. The primary grievance of the petitioners is that
they did not receive the question booklet as the said examination
was conducted via online mode nor any model answer key was
published by the respondents. Therefore, the said examination is
alleged to be biased, unfair and conducted in a non-transparent
manner, bypassing the settled provisions of law.
D. SUBMISSIONS BY THE COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE
PETITIONERS
(Downloaded on 04/01/2025 at 12:28:06 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49565] (5 of 56) [CW-3567/2024]
4. At the outset, learned counsel have averred that the
time line of events justify that the cause of action arose after the
declaration of provisional results and the issuance of document
verification order. The petitioners had a legitimate expectation that
respondents would follow the established procedures however,
when the same were not complied with, the petitioners without
any delay have knocked the doors of the Court.
5. In this backdrop, learned counsel representing the
petitioners have averred that the petitioners have raised their
grievances before the respondents, have filed a representation via
e-mail (dated 26.02.2024) and have even visited the office of
respondent nos. 01, 02 and 03. However, no satisfactory response
was tendered by the respondents and a cursory reply stating “your
grievance regarding question is noted” was given. Subsequently,
the respondents issued the score card of the petitioners wherein,
the petitioner-Narpat Surela had scored 115 marks out of the
maximum marks. Nevertheless, as per the self-evaluation made
by the petitioner he was liable to secure more marks.
6. Therefore, it can be deduced that the respondents
without following the due process of examination and without
tendering an opportunity to raise objections; bypassing the
principles of natural justice, in violation to the provisions
enshrined under the Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of
India and ignoring the reminders made by the petitioners have
culminated the said selection process.
7. At this nascent juncture learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners have placed reliance upon a catena of judgments
(Downloaded on 04/01/2025 at 12:28:06 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49565] (6 of 56) [CW-3567/2024]
passed by various High Courts and Hon’ble Apex Court. Some of
the relied upon dictums amongst others were Rishal Vs. RPSC &
Ors. reported in (2018) 8 SCC 81, Meeta Sahai Vs. State of
Bihar & Ors. registered as Civil Appeal No. 9482/2019,
Ramjit Singh Kardam & Ors. Vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors.
registered as Civil Appeal No. 2103/2020, Harkirat Singh
Ghuman Vs. Punjab and Haryana High Court & Ors. reported
in AIR 2022 SC 4060 and Kanpur University, through Vice-
Chancellor & Ors. Vs. Samir Gupta & Ors. reported in 1983
AIR SC 1230.
8. While placing reliance upon the afore-cited ratios
learned counsel have further contended that in order to maintain
the transparency and un-biasness in public objective type
examinations, there should always be a provision of OMR answer
sheet, which upon culmination of the examination should be
handed over to the candidate along with a copy of the question
booklet, thereafter, the provisional/model answer key should be
published and objections should be invited; withal,
answers/responses to the said objections should be tendered with
reasonable justification within the stipulated period, by the expert
committee so formulated by the exam-conducting agency and only
after duly complying with the said procedure, the final score
sheet/merit list of the candidate should be released. It was further
averred that transparency, self-evaluation of the candidates and
un-biasness are essential for any public recruitment.
9. Learned counsel have further contended that the
respondents chose to omit the engagement of exam conducting
(Downloaded on 04/01/2025 at 12:28:06 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49565] (7 of 56) [CW-3567/2024]
authorities like Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Rajasthan
Staff Selection Board and MNIT (recognized Engineering College of
Government), pursuant to Article 309 and 311 of the Constitution
of India who have conducted the erstwhile recruitment process
and have scheduled and culminated the said recruitment process
in a great haste with the aid of Institute of Banking Personnel
Selection (hereinafter referred to as IBPS). Moreover, the malice in
law and irregularities of the respondents can also be corroborated
from the fact that the respondents despite the fact that RSPCB is a
Public Authority and RTI Act is applicable qua them, circumvented
the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter
referred to as RTI Act) and the Rajasthan Transparency in Public
Procurement Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as RTPP Act). For
the sake of convenience the relevant provision from the
Constitution of India is reproduced herein below:
309. Recruitment and conditions of service of
persons serving the Union or a State- Subject to
the provisions of this Constitution, Acts of the
appropriate Legislature may regulate the recruitment,
and conditions of service of persons appointed, to
public services and posts in connection with the affairs
of the Union or of any State:
Provided that it shall be competent for the President or
such person as he may direct in the case of services
and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union,
and for the Governor of a State or such person as he
may direct in the case of services and posts in
connection with the affairs of the State, to make rules
regulating the recruitment, and the conditions of
service of persons appointed, to such services and(Downloaded on 04/01/2025 at 12:28:06 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49565] (8 of 56) [CW-3567/2024]posts until provision in that behalf is made by or under
an Act of the appropriate Legislature under this article,
and any rules so made shall have effect subject to the
provisions of any such Act.
10. Likewise, the engagement of IBPS as an examination
conducting agencies lacks transparency and fairness hence by the
said act of the respondents, the fundamental rights of the
petitioners are vitiated. Learned counsel had further averred that
the following are indispensable ingredients by which any public
domain examination can be considered unprejudiced:
10.1 Disclosure of question booklets/ allow the candidates to
take along the question booklets.
10.2 Publication of model answer key.
10.3 Inviting the objections by the candidates.
10.4 Formulation of an expert committee to address the
objections.
10.5 Execution of memorandum of understanding
(hereinafter referred to as MoU)
11. Howsoever, in the matter in hand no such procedure
was followed by the respondents and the provisions of RTPP Act,
the Rajasthan Stamps Act, Rules of 1993 etc. were bypassed.
Learned counsel had further apprised this Court qua the fact that
it was only brought in the knowledge of the petitioners, by the
respondents whilst replying to the instant petitions that the MoU
inter-se the respondent-authorities was effectuated on 04.10.2023
(one day prior to the issuance of the said advertisement) by which
the respondent-IBPS was entrusted with the work of conducting of
(Downloaded on 04/01/2025 at 12:28:06 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49565] (9 of 56) [CW-3567/2024]
the said examination. Nevertheless, the said MoU was not made
available for the public perusal nor the said provision was included
in the said advertisement. Moreover, the application forms that
were downloaded by the petitioners do not have any URL
referring/stating that the said examination shall be conducted by
IBPS.
12. It was further contended that only under exceptional
and emergent conditions the provisions of Section 31(h) of RTPP
Act qua single source procurement can be invoked, however,
herein the respondents have failed to justify any such exceptional
circumstances for adopting single source procurement as per
Section 31 (h) of the RTPP Act.
13. Consecutively, it was contended that the principles of
acquiescence, waiver and estoppel will not by applicable upon the
petitioners as the candidates appearing in any
examination/selection process only accept the prescribed
procedure nevertheless, failure in examination cannot debar a
candidates to challenge the said recruitment process.
14. Albeit the provisions of the Rajasthan State Control
Board Employees Service Rules and Regulations, 1993 (hereinafter
referred to as Rules and Regulations of 1993) do not prohibit or
restrict the issuance of model answer key, the invitation of
objections or constitution/formulation of an expert committee, the
respondents have failed to do so. Additionally, learned counsel
have contended that it is a settled position of law that there is a
distinction between the malice in law and malice in facts. When
malice in law is referred then there is no necessity to make any
(Downloaded on 04/01/2025 at 12:28:06 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49565] (10 of 56) [CW-3567/2024]
categorical allegations of malafides against anyone. Nonetheless,
it is duty of the exam conducting agency to maintain transparency
and fairness in recruitment process in consonance with Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution of India.
15. Nevertheless, the RPSC and Rajasthan Staff Selection
Board are confined to make recruitment only under the service
rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and no
single document was placed by the respondents to corroborate the
same. Lastly, it was contended that a vigilant reading of the said
provision indicates that it pertains to the recruitment and
conditions of service of persons serving the Union or State and
does not prohibit a public service commission from conducting
examinations for any statutory autonomous body over which the
State exercises pervasive control.
E. SUBMISSIONS BY THE COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE
RESPONDENTS
E.1 SUBMISSIONS BY THE COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE
RESPONDENT-STATE
16. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General had
stoutly opposed the contentions leveled by the counsel
representing the petitioners and averred that the primary vital
aspects necessitated for an efficacious adjudication of the matter
in hand are that the Board decided to initiate a selection process
on the vacant posts of JSO numbering 59 and 53 vacant posts of
JEE. However, against the total cadre strength of 85 only 26 JSO’s
were manning the posts and similarly 88 posts of JEE could be
filled. Thence, it can be deduced that the petitioners herein have
(Downloaded on 04/01/2025 at 12:28:06 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49565] (11 of 56) [CW-3567/2024]
failed to qualify the said examination (petitioner-Narpat Surela
secured approximately 38 marks less than the minimum cut-off
marks).
17. At this nascent juncture, learned AAG had averred that
Rajasthan Pollution Control Board (as an autonomous body) was
established on 07.02.1975 under the provision of Section 4 of the
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter
referred to as the Act of 1974). With prior consent of the State
government, the Rajasthan State Pollution Board Employees
Service Rules and Regulations came into force (published in
gazette on 30.03.1993). Subsequently, vide notifications published
in Rajasthan Raj Patra dated 01.04.2010, 21.06.2012,
06.09.2013, 08.08.2014, 18.01.2016, 23.10.2019, 17.01.2023
and 21.08.2023 the Rules and Regulation of 1993 were amended.
18. Moreover, in the 147th Board meeting held on
22.10.2020 it was held that in exercise of the powers conferred
under the provisions of Section 12 sub-section 3A of the Act of
1974 the power of the Central or State Board to make regulations,
providing for method of recruitment and the terms and conditions
of the service of the officers and employees except the member
Secretary were delegated. It was further averred that the
provision of Rule 18 of the Rules and Regulations of 1993 i.e. the
procedure for Direct Recruitment were duly complied with.
19. Consequently, the Board vide letter no. 1471 dated
31.07.2023 requested the State to grant sanction to fill up the
vacant seats. The said proposal along with a dummy file was sent
to appropriate departments to attain requisite sanctions.
(Downloaded on 04/01/2025 at 12:28:06 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49565] (12 of 56) [CW-3567/2024]
Nonetheless, the petitioners herein have failed to qualify the said
examination.
20. Subsequently, the National Green Tribunal Principal
Bench – New Delhi, took a cognizance of a news published in a
daily newspaper dated 24.10.2023 and accordingly a suo-moto
was registered. Therein, the Central Pollution Board filed a report
on 22.11.2023 underlining the fact that all the PCBs across the
country are under-staffed. A detailed chart was submitted in the
aforesaid case outlining the total number of sanctioned posts
available and the posts duly manned. As per the said report the
RSPCB is sanctioned with 808 posts against which only 330 posts
were duly filled, with total vacancy of 470 posts. Thereafter, vide
order dated 24.04.2024 the Hon’ble Apex Court considered the
chart submitted before it across the Bar detailing out the number
of vacancies in the PCBs of Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan and Uttar
Pradesh and accordingly the State of Rajasthan was directed to
act immediately by filing an affidavit. A subsequent direction was
given to do the needful within a period of two months from
22.04.2024 (Annexure- RA/2 and RA/3).
21. Further, learned AAG had contended that the
advertisement form qua the said examination was designed by
respondent-IBPS and there was a disclosure clause at no. 23 in
the MoU permitting the display of logo of IBPS on the candidate’s
instruction sheet. Nevertheless, the Board was merely the host of
the URL and the said application form was designed and managed
by the respondent-IBPS. Subsequently post examination for
validation by the experts of the examining body respondent-IBPS
(Downloaded on 04/01/2025 at 12:28:06 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49565] (13 of 56) [CW-3567/2024]
took around 45 days to address each and every grievance
uploaded on the IBPS portal. Therefore, complying with the
directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and considering the fact that
respondent-IBPS had always conducted the recruitment exams
with utmost transparency and un-biasness, the respondent-RSPCB
indulged respondent-IBPS.
22. Additionally, it was submitted that the State
government and the Board were aware of the paucity of the work-
force and therefore, the process of recruitment was undertaken
with regard to the posts of JSO, JEE and Law Officer Grade II. The
initial notification was issued by the Board inviting applications for
114 posts out of which 59 posts were for JSO, 53 posts for JEE
and 2 posts were for Law Officer Grade II. The said examination
was conducted through respondent-IBPS on 09.01.2024. It was
further averred that the petitioners appeared in the examination
without any demeanor and therefore, their rights to challenge the
further proceedings stand forfeited on account of the principles of
acquiescence, waiver and estoppel.
23. Likewise, the RPSC cannot carry out recruitment for the
post carrying grade pay of Rs. 3600/- and below. Howsoever, the
recruitment process in the matter in hand was for 114 posts
carrying grade pay from Rs. 4800/- to Rs. 3600/- in the pay band
of L-12 and L-10. Considering the said facts the said recruitment
process could neither be conducted by the RPSC nor the RSSB.
Moreover, the Rules and Regulations of 1993 promulgated by the
Board had no provision permitting the recruitment process to be
undertaken through Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, for the
(Downloaded on 04/01/2025 at 12:28:06 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49565] (14 of 56) [CW-3567/2024]
concerned posts. Additionally, upon a bare perusal of the calendar
and schedule of the said authorities it can be deduced that the
MNIT and RSSB were already conducting examinations in the said
period.
24. At this juncture, learned AAG had placed reliance upon
a catena of judgments passed by various High Courts and Hon’ble
Supreme Court. Some of the relied upon dictums amongst others
were Dalip Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors. reported
in (2010) 2 SCC 114, Tajvir Singh Sodhi & Ors. Vs. the State
of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. reported in AIR 2023 SC 2014,
Union of India Vs. S. Vinodh Kumar reported in (2007) 8 SCC
100, D. Sarojkumari Vs. R. Helon Thilakom reported in
(2017) 9 SCC 478, Anupal Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
reported in (2020) 2 SCC 173 and Madan Lal Vs. State of
Jammu and Kashmir reported in (1995) 3 SCC 486.
E.2 SUBMISSIONS BY THE COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE
RESPONDENT-RSPCB
25. Learned counsel appearing for respondent-Board had
averred that the condition no. 11 of the said advertisement makes
it unambiguous that during the process of selection no information
shall be provided to the candidates. However, upon completion of
the said examination the score cards of the petitioners were duly
released. Moreover, for the verification of documents the
candidates were called in ratio of 1:2 and the cut-off marks qua
the same were uploaded immediately after finalization. Hence, no
depravity is caused by the respondents.
(Downloaded on 04/01/2025 at 12:28:06 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49565] (15 of 56) [CW-3567/2024]
26. It was further averred that the provisional list for JSO
for document verification was released on 23.02.2024 whereby,
around two times candidates were called for document verification
including all the tie-case candidates. Notwithstanding, the
respondent-IBPS was indulged as the exam conducting authority
after taking note of their spotless record qua the exams conducted
by it in banking sectors as well as in energy department i.e.
RVUN, RVPN, JVVN, AVVN of Rajasthan and the fact that the
respondent-Board was facing a manpower scarcity.
27. It was further contended that the respondent-Board is
an autonomous regulatory body, having its own service Rules and
Regulation of 1993. In such cases the approval of the Finance
Department and Government of Rajasthan is not required for the
post falling vacant after 01.04.2021 as per the Government of
Rajasthan circular dated 31.03.2023 (Annexure- RA/6) therefore,
the selection of agency engaged by the Board is its prerogative as
per the governing Rules. Likewise, as per the provisions of the
MoU, the standard guidelines and policy adopted by respondent-
IBPS is applicable for all its client organizations.
E.3 SUBMISSIONS BY THE COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE
RESPONDENT-IBPS
28. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of IBPS had
apprised the Court with the fact that the IBPS i.e. Institute of
Banking Personnel Selection is a society floated by officials, at
relevant of Reserved Bank of India, Central Public Financial
Institutions and Public Sector Banks. Thereafter, in April 1984,
(Downloaded on 04/01/2025 at 12:28:06 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49565] (16 of 56) [CW-3567/2024]
IBPS was recognized as a Scientific and Industrial Research
Organization by the Department of Scientific and Industrial
Research, Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of
India. To support its functionaries, IBPS has experts drawn from
various fields on its payroll and panel, including psychometrics,
banking varied engineering backgrounds, Hindi etc.
29. Withal, IBPS from last four decades is rendering
services/assistance to its client organizations in their recruitment,
promotion and placement functions by adopting best practices and
designs of suitable assessment tools, scoring and answering
responses and processing results of examination with speed,
accuracy and confidentiality. Moreover, IBPS is defined as an
approved agency under Regional Rural Banks (Appointment of
Officers and Employees) Rules, 2017 for conducting examinations.
30. Amongst the manifold submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing for IBPS, a few of which were, that the
respondent-RSPCB engaged services of IBPS to conduct the
instant examination and to administer the same by providing
technical and infrastructural support as the said examination was
scheduled to be of online mode. To regularize the governing
provisions and to draw consensus an MoU was signed by the
parties (IBPS and RSPCB) on 04.10.2023 in Mumbai and in
consonance with the ‘Standard Guidelines of IBPS’ the said
examination was conducted (Annexure-9 in SBCWP No.
5289/2024). The vital points emerging from the MoU are
tabulated herein below:
(Downloaded on 04/01/2025 at 12:28:06 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49565] (17 of 56) [CW-3567/2024]
Clause Internal Page Text
No. No. of MoU
3.5 6 As per IBPS policy, the test papers are
not disclosed to anybody other than the
candidates only during the examination.
The test papers are also not shared with
anybody even after the examination(s).
In case of any dispute, IBPS shall
provide the ad seriatim responses of
aggrieved candidates, if any, and the
corresponding right answers.
3.8 7 In case of RSPCB requiring to comply
with statutory requirements under RTI
Act, IBPS will make available dump of
responses (answers marked by the
candidate/right answer key for objective
tests/papers only) to facilitate RSPCB to
reply the same.
31. Qua the contentions made in referring to non-reply of
the application under RTI Act, it was contended that the said
advertisement under Part B Clause No. 11 unequivocally stated
that the provisions of RTI Act won’t be applicable qua the
respondent-IBPS and the data stored with them. Moreover, the
IBPS consults the subject experts, designs the question papers
and take model answers in respect of each question papers;
therefore, the same are original literary work and the respondent-
IBPS has copyright in respect thereof as per the provisions of
Section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act, 2005.
32. In support of the contentions made insofar learned
counsel had placed reliance upon the judgments passed by
Hon’ble Apex Court in Anupal Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
reported in (2020) 2 SCC 173, Union of India and Ors. Vs. S.
Vinodh Kumar and Ors. reported in (2007) 8 SCC 100 and
(Downloaded on 04/01/2025 at 12:28:06 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49565] (18 of 56) [CW-3567/2024]
Chandra Prakash Tiwari Vs. Shakuntala Shukla reported in
(2002) 6 SCC 127.
E.4 SUBMISSIONS BY THE COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE
RESPONDENT- SELECTED CANDIDATES WHO APPEARED AS
INTERVENER
33. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents endorsing the contentions made herein above have
further contended that the said examination was conducted with
utmost cautiousness and transparency by IBPS using latest
technologies like bio-metric scanning, iris scanners, on-site photo
capturing & matching and CCTV surveillance over all the exam
centers like Kota, Jodhpur, Udaipur and Jaipur. Upon successful
conduct of the said examination and document verification,
appointment letters were issued to the eligible 96 candidates, who
as on date are rendering services at their respective place of
posting.
34. To conclude the averments, learned counsel
representing the respondents had averred that for justified
reasons the provisions of Section 31(h) of RTPP Act, were invoked
and single source procurement was made; moreover, no
allegations of any malpractice or use of unfair means was/is
reported. Therefore, it can be deduced that the said examination
was culminated in the most suitable manner.
F. ISSUES AND POINTS OF DETERMINATION
35. This Court, after conducting prolonged day to day
hearings, and having heard and considered the arguments
(Downloaded on 04/01/2025 at 12:28:06 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49565] (19 of 56) [CW-3567/2024]
advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the
parties and upon assiduously scanning the records inclusive of the
additional affidavits of the instant batch of petitions, has felt that
it apposite to formulate the following issues and/or points of
determination for this Court, adjudication of which shall
inadvertently put a quietus to the lis before this Court. The
issue/points of determination for this Court, are noted herein
below:
I) Whether the Board had the authority under Rule 18 of the
Rules of 1993 to delegate the powers and appoint respondent-
IBPS as an examination conducting authority? Whether the said
action is valid and legal?
II) Whether invoking the powers under Section 31(h) of the
RTPP Act, for single source procurement by appointing
respondent-IBPS were correct?
III) Whether MoU dated 04.10.2023 legally admissible?
IV) Whether the instant selection process of direct recruitment,
conducted in a transparent, unbiased and legal manner, sans any
malice in law?
V) Whether the petitioners are barred by the principle of
estoppel, waiver and acquiescence? Whether the rules of game
can be changed?
G. ANNOTATIONS
36. As a precursor to recording findings on the issues
formulated herein-above, this Court deems it appropriate to jot
down indubitable facts:
(Downloaded on 04/01/2025 at 12:28:06 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49565] (20 of 56) [CW-3567/2024]
36.1 That vide advertisement dated 05.10.2023, issued by
the respondents as per the provisions of Rules of 1993 and the
amended Rules, direct recruitment qua the vacant posts of JSO,
JEE and Legal Officer Grade II was initiated. The said
advertisement unequivocally noted the eligibility criteria, number
of vacancies and other requisite details. The relevant information
qua the number of posts are tabulated herein below:
Ø-la- in dk uke xSj vuqlwfpr {ks= vuqlwfpr {ks= dqy ;ksx
1. fof/k vf/kdkjh&f}rh; (LO-II) 02 00 02
2. dfu”B oSKkfud vf/kdkjh (JSO) 59 00 59
3. dfu”B i;kZoj.k vfHk;Urk (JEE) 50 03 5336.2 That the said advertisement noted all the requisite
instructions and guidelines; it was also categorically noted in
clause 11 of the said advertisement that the provisions of RTI Act
shall not be applicable on the said examination process until the
conclusion of the recruitment process. The relevant guidelines and
instructions is reiterated herein below:
“¼7½ vkosnd ftuds vkWuykbZu vkosnu i=] vkosnu&i= izkfIr dh vafre
fnukad rd e.My dh osclkbZV ij iw.kZ lwpuk lfgr izkIr gksaxs] ,sls
vkosndksa dks e.My }kjk vufUre :i ls lacaf/kr HkrhZ ijh{kk esa izos’k
fn;k tk,xkA ijh{kk ds fy;s izos’k&i= tkjh djus dk ;g vfHkizk; ugha
gS fd e.My }kjk mldh mEehnokjh vafre :i ls lgh eku yh xbZ gS
vFkok mEehnokj }kjk vkosnu&i= esa mYysf[kr izfof”V;k¡ e.My }kjk
lgh eku yh xbZ gSA e.My }kjk vkosndksa dh ik=rk dh tk¡p vyx ls
dh tk,xhA ;fn vH;FkhZ dh fdlh Hkh dkj.k ls vik=rk dk irk pyrk
gS rks bl ijh{kk gsrq mldh mEehnokjh fdlh Hkh Lrj ij jn~n dh tk
ldrh gS] ftldh leLr ftEesnkjh Lo;a vH;FkhZ dh gksxhA
¼8½ vkosnd mDr in gsrq rHkh vkosnu djsa tc og mDr in gsrq
foKkiu esa fuf’pr fuEu o mPp vk;q lhek ds vUrxZr okafNr
‘kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ls lacaf/kr lEiw.kZ [email protected] iw.kZ djrk gksA(Downloaded on 04/01/2025 at 12:28:06 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49565] (21 of 56) [CW-3567/2024]lkFk gh bl foKkiu esa nh xbZ mDr okafNr ‘kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ds
vfrfjDr vU; fdlh ;ksX;rk ,oa vuqHko dks e.My }kjk Lohdkj ugha
fd;k tk;sxkA
¼9½ ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa }kjk bZ&izos’k i= esa mYysf[kr foLr`r fn’kk&funsZ’kksa dh
ikyuk lqfuf’pr fd;k tkuk vko’;d gksxkA
¼10½ jkT; deZpkjh dks ns; ykHk ;Fkk vk;q lhek esa NwV] vkj{k.k bR;kfn
dsoy jktLFkku jkT; ds deZpkfj;ksa dks gh izkIr gSA vU; jkT; ds
deZpkjh ;k dsUnz lsok ds deZpkjh lkekU; gh ekus tk;saxs] mUgsa mDr
ykHk ugha fn;k tk;sxkA
¼11½ HkrhZ izfØ;k yfEcr jgus ds nkSjku lwpuk ds vf/kdkj vf/kfu;e]
2005 ds rgr fdlh Hkh izdkj dh lwpuk HkrhZ izfØ;k iwjh gksus rd
miyC/k ugha djok;h tk;sxhA HkrhZ izfØ;k iwjh gksus ij okafNr lwpuk
fu;ekuqlkj miyC/k djk;h tk ldsxhA
¼12½ ;g HkrhZ izfØ;k iwoZ esa e.My }kjk dh xbZ HkrhZ ds lEcU/k esa
fofHkUu U;k;ky;ksa esa fopkjk/khu fof/kd izdj.kksa esa tkjh fd;s x;s
vkns’[email protected]; ds v/khu jgsxhA”
36.3 That for the said examination/selection process, the
results were released in-between 22.02.2024 and 24.02.2024 and
subsequently, appointment letters were issued to the eligible
candidates (Approximately 96 in number), who as on date are
rendering services at the allotted place of posting.
36.4 That as per the provisions of Section 12 sub section 3A
of the Act of 1974 read with Section 54 of the Air (Prevention And
Control Of Pollution) Act, 1981 it is indisputable that the method
of recruitment and the terms and conditions of service of the
officers and other employees of the State Board shall be such as
may be determined by regulations made by the State Board.
“12. Member-secretary and officers and other
employees of Board.–(1) The terms and conditions
of service of the member-secretary shall be such as
may be prescribed.
(Downloaded on 04/01/2025 at 12:28:06 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49565] (22 of 56) [CW-3567/2024]
(2) The member-secretary shall exercise such powers
and perform such duties as may be prescribed or as
may, from time to time, be delegated to him by the
Board or its chairman.
(3) Subject to such rules as may be made by the
Central Government or, as the case may be, the State
Government in this behalf, a Board may appoint such
officers and employees as it considers necessary for
the efficient performance of its functions.
(3A) The method of recruitment and the terms and
conditions of service (including the scales of pay) of
the officers (other than the member-secretary) and
other employees of the Central Board or a State
Board shall be such as may be determined by
regulations made by the Central Board or, as the case
may be, by the State Board: Provided that no
regulation made under this sub-section shall take
effect unless,– (a) in the case of a regulation made
by the Central Board, it is approved by the Central
Government; and (b) in the case of a regulation made
by a State Board, it is approved by the State
Government………”
36.5 That by a conjoint reading of the Rules 2(b), 2(f), 18(4)
and 25 of the Rules of 1993 it can be deduced that one of the
methods for recruiting candidates qua the vacancies will be ‘direct
recruitment’; wherein, the Board/appointing authority shall issue
an advertisement by way of a public notice or paper publication.
In the matter in hand, the lis before this Court also falls under the
ambit of the said mode of recruitment under the provision stated
as “In such manner, as it may be deemed fit”. For the sake of
handiness and convenience the aforementioned provisions qua the
definitions are reproduced herein below:
(Downloaded on 04/01/2025 at 12:28:06 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49565] (23 of 56) [CW-3567/2024]
“2. Definitions: (b) “Appointing Authority” in
respect of the Executive posts means the “Chairman”
and in respect of Subordinate Service or other
Ministerial & class IV posts means the Member
Secretary or such other officer to whom this power
may, with any conditions be delegated by the Board
in respect of certain categories of posts.
(f) “Direct Recruitment” means recruitment made
according to the procedure prescribed in Part-IV of
these rules.
6. Methods of recruitment.
(1) Recruitment to the posts in the Service after the
commencement of these rules shall be made by the
following methods in proportion as indicated in
columns 3 and 4 of Schedules :-
(a) By direct recruitment in accordance with
procedure prescribed in Part IV of these rules; and
(b) By promotion in accordance with procedure
prescribed in Part V of these rules.
(c) By deputation or temporary transfer of an officer
of the Government or local authority or Government
controlled body.
Provided that:
(i) If the Board is satisfied in consultation with the
Government Where necessary that suitable persons
are not available for appointment by either method of
recruitment in a particular year, appointment by the
other method in relaxation of the prescribed
proportion may be made in the same manner as
specified in these rules,
(ii) The person not covered by Rule 5, who were
appointed to the posts included in Schedules on
adhoc or officiating or urgent temporary basis and
who have been continuously holding such posts for at
least one year on the date of commencement of these
rules shall be screened by a Committee referred to in
Rule 26 for adjudging their suitability on the posts
held provided they possessed the requisite
qualification prescribed in the rules either for direct
recruitment or promotion or the prescribed
qualification on the basis of which persons were
selected for adhoc/officiating urgent temporary(Downloaded on 04/01/2025 at 12:28:06 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49565] (24 of 56) [CW-3567/2024]appointment. This provision shall be subject to the
following conditions viz:-
(a) A person appointed on adhoc basis shall not be
entitled to screening for a post higher than that to
which he was initially appointed if a person senior to
him on a lower post who fulfilled qualifications
prescribed for the post was either not given such
adhoc appointment or is not entitled to screening
under this rule. Seniority for this purpose shall be
determined according to length of continuous service
on post.
(b) The committee appointed under these rules for
adjudging suitability by screening either as an
exception to general methods of recruitment or as
initial constitution of service, may ex-gratia
recommend, if any of the Employees with more than
three years of service on a post for which he is to be
screened is not adjudged suitable and if thereafter
has no right to be appointed on a lower post for such
lower post being offered to him by absorption and
there upon such an employee shall be treated as
surplus employee, and such employee may be
absorbed on the lower post on the recommendation of
the Committee subject to such conditions as may be
laid down by it.
Note. – The provision of screening under proviso (ii)
of Rule 6 has been intended to be the first step and
after exhausting the vacancies required for screened
persons irrespective of direct recruitment and
promotion quota, the direct recruitment and
promotion quota shall be applied.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in these
Rules the recruitment appointment promotion
seniority and confirmation etc. of a person who joins
the Army/Air Force/Navy during an Emergency shall
be regulated by such orders and instructions as may
be issued by the Government, from time provided
that these are regulated mutatis mutandis according
to the instructions issued on the subject by the
Government, of India.
18. Inviting of Applications: Application for direct
recruitment to posts in the service shall be invited by
the Board/Appointing Authority by advertising the
vacancies to be filed in the news-paper & notifying it
(Downloaded on 04/01/2025 at 12:28:06 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49565] (25 of 56) [CW-3567/2024]
to the Employment Ex-Change or in such other
manner as may be deemed fit.
25. Selection by the Appointing Authority. (1)
Subject to the number of posts specified in the notice
issued under Rule 19 and subject to reservations of
posts in favour of candidates belonging to Scheduled
Caste/Scheduled Tribes, physically handicapped
persons in respect of posts included in schedules, the
Appointing Authority shall select candidates who
stand highest in the order of merit in the list prepared
by the committee under Rule, 23.
Provided that inclusion of a candidate’s name in the
list confers on right to appointment unless the
Appointing Authority is satisfied after such enquiry as
may be considered necessary that such candidate is
suitable in all other respect for appointment to the
post concerned
Provided further also that the Appointing Authority,
may further select, against addition vacancies in the
order of merit from the list prepared under Rule 23 by
the Board/Appointing Authority as the case may be
for appointment to posts in the service specified in
schedules, candidates upto the number of vacancies
intimated by them to the Board/Appointing Authority
before final declaration of the result of the interview
conducted by the Board/Appointing Authority.
(2) If persons, selected under sub-rule (1) above
and appointed to a post concerned in accordance with
these Rules & Regulations against the vacancies of a
particular year for which the interview was conducted
by the Board/Appointing Authority in accordance with
these rules does not join on that event the said
vacancies shall be treated as a fresh vacancy.”
36.6 That as per the provisions of Rule 22 of the Rules of
1993, the ultimate decision qua the eligibility, cut-off and other
requisites for the candidates shall be decided by the
Board/appointing authority. Accordingly, in the matter in hand the
respondents have scrutinized the candidates, drawn their merits
and strictly in accordance with the same have selected the
(Downloaded on 04/01/2025 at 12:28:06 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49565] (26 of 56) [CW-3567/2024]
candidates, who as on date are rendering services. The Rule 22 of
the Rules of 1993 is reproduced herein below:
“22. Scrutiny of Application. The Appointing
Authority shall scrutinize the application received by it
and require as many candidates qualified for
appointment under these rules & regulations as
seems to it desirable to appear before it for interview:
Provided that the decision of the Appointing Authority
as the case may be, regarding eligibility or otherwise
of a candidate shall be final.”
36.7 That the RPSC cannot carry out recruitment for the post
carrying grade pay of Rs. 3600/- and below. Howsoever, the
recruitment process in the matter in hand was for 114 posts
carrying grade pay from Rs. 4800/- to Rs. 3600/- in the pay band
of L-12 and L-10. Considering the said facts the said recruitment
process could neither be conducted by the RPSC nor the RSSB.
Moreover, the Rules and Regulations of 1993 promulgated by the
Board had no provision permitting the recruitment process to be
undertaken through Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, for the
concerned posts.
36.8 That the petitioners have failed to qualify the said
examination and have scored much less than the cut-off marks
under respective categories.
36.9 That in compliance of the directions of this Court (vide
order dated 31.07.2023), the relevant file in the Department of
Environment and Climate Change, Government of Rajasthan,
Jaipur bearing file no. F.I. (9) Env/15/Part-II alongwith the E-file
00305 being a dummy file were furnished and analyzed.
(Downloaded on 04/01/2025 at 12:28:06 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49565] (27 of 56) [CW-3567/2024]
H. DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS
I) Whether the Board had the authority under Rule
18 of the Rules of 1993 to delegate the powers and appoint
respondent-IBPS as an examination conducting authority?
Whether the said action is valid and legal?
37. Upon a bare perusal of the relevant provisions i.e. the
Rules and Regulations of 1993, it can be deduced that the Board
being the appropriate appointing authority has in its prerogative
and jurisdiction to carry out, delegate its powers and conduct the
recruitment as per the direct recruitment. Nevertheless, Rules
2(b), 6 and 18 of the said Rules corroborate and provide the
procedure to carry out recruitment by direct method. It is
pertinent to note that as per the requirements of Rule 18 of Rules
of 1993, for providing direct recruitment to the posts in the
service, the Board shall invite applications from the eligible
candidates by advertising vacancies in the news-papers and
notifying the same to the employment exchange or ‘any such
manner as may be deemed fit’.
38. Additionally, Rule 19 of the said Rules provides for the
contents of the Notice as stated under Rule 18 of the Rules and
Regulations of 1993. Sections 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 of the Act
of 1974 provide the procedure that is to be adopted in this regard.
Rule 18 exists in terms of the original notification dated
30.03.1993 and as amended by the amendment notification dated
01.04.2010.
39. From the scheme of Rules it is clear that the Board is
under an obligation to invite applications vis-à-vis recruitment on
(Downloaded on 04/01/2025 at 12:28:06 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49565] (28 of 56) [CW-3567/2024]
vacant posts through notification published in the manner
prescribed and for further it may advert to other methods
including engaging agency for conducting the
recruitment/selection examination.
40. Thence, it can be concluded that once a committee is
formulated as per the provisions of Rule 26 of the Rules and
Regulations of 1993 under the Chairman-ship of the member-
Secretary, the present mechanism of direct recruitment through
respondent-IBPS is valid and unerring.
II) Whether invoking the powers under Section 31(h)
of the RTPP Act, for Single Source procurement by
appointing respondent-IBPS were correct?
41. Precursory to comment upon the said issue, for the
sake of convenience the relevant provision from the RTPP Act is
reiterated herein below:
“31. Single source procurement.- (1) A procuring
entity may choose to procure the subject matter of
procurement by the method of single source
procurement, if-
a) xxxx
b) xxxx
c) xxxx
d) xxxx
e) xxxx
f) xxxx
g) xxxx
h) Subject matter of procurement is of such nature as
requires the procuring entity to maintain
confidentiality, like printing of examination
papers……….”
42. During the course of pleadings no substantive
documents are placed on record elucidating as to why the Single
(Downloaded on 04/01/2025 at 12:28:06 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49565] (29 of 56) [CW-3567/2024]
Source procurement was favored over an open competitive
bidding. Moreover, there is a notable absence of documentation
regarding the negotiations conducted in good faith with the bidder.
Moreover, Circular dated 31.03.2023 falls short in justifying and
addressing the exceptional, emergent circumstances and
administrative reasons purportedly justifying the departure from
the standard bidding procedures.
43. As per the provisions of Section 3 of the RTPP Act, to
regulate the public employment and with the main objective of
ensuring transparency, fairness and un-biasness; to promote fair
competition among all the bidders, and to enhance efficiency and
economy the State government has formulated the RTPP Act,
2012. While taking note of the provisions of Section 3(2)(d) of the
Act, it can be deduced that the Board herein falls under the ambit
of “procuring entity”.
“3. Application- (1) This Act shall apply to all
procuring entities referred to in sub-section (2).
(2) For the purposes of this Act, “procuring entity”
means,-
(a) xxxx
(b) xxxx
(c) xxxx
(d) any body or board or corporation or authority or
society or trust or autonomous body (by whatever
name called) established or constituted by an Act of
the State Legislature or a body owned or controlled by
the State Government…….”
44. Subsequently, while considering the provisions of
Sections 2, 20 and 31(h) of the RTPP Act, it can be noted that the
‘service’ will not include appointment of any person made by a
‘procuring entity’. The mode of procurement as per Section 31(h)
(Downloaded on 04/01/2025 at 12:28:06 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49565] (30 of 56) [CW-3567/2024]
of the RTPP Act, can only be made permissible when prospective
bidder is having exclusive right in respect of the subject matter,
there is a sudden unforeseen event which requires an urgent
need. However, when the main tender is already under
consideration/available and additional supplies are warranted
against the existing contract, and issue like national security is
involved or the subject matter is of confidential nature, only then
can the single source procurement method be used.
45. Notwithstanding anything stated herein above, in the
matter in hand neither the procurement was pertaining to
appointment of any person by the procuring entity nor was it
pertaining to printing of examination paper, rather the MoU
executed inter-se the parties pertained to conducting the entire
recruitment/selection examination. Likewise, no contract or bid
pertaining to printing of examination papers was executed.
46. Even momentarily it is assumed that the Single Source
procurement was valid, the provisions of Rule 17 of the RTPP
Rules, 2013 were violated in-toto. Section 17 of the RTPP Act,
makes it mandatory to exhibit the invitation to bid from single
source procurement portal, negotiations and to show bona-fides.
However, sine qua non the aforementioned procedure the Single
Source procurement could not be initiated. The said Rule is
reproduced herein below:
“17. Single source procurement.- (1) In
addition to the conditions enumerated in sub-
sec. (1) of Sec. 31, a procuring entity may
procure the subject matter by the method of
single source procurement, if-
(Downloaded on 04/01/2025 at 12:28:06 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49565] (31 of 56) [CW-3567/2024]
(a) Hiring of the services of consultant or
professional is required, for a maximum period
of twelve months and up to financial limit of
Rupees five lakh in each case, subject to
delegation of financial powers for the
departments of State Government or its
attached or subordinate offices and in case of all
other procuring entities above limit shall be
Rupees twelve lakh in each case, subject to
delegation of financial powers; or
(b) Price of subject matter of procurement is
administered by the State Government or the
Central Government.
(2) The procedure for single source procurement
shall be as under:-
(a) The procuring entity shall solicit a bid from
the single prospective bidder and shall also
exhibit the invitation to bid on the State Public
Procurement Portal if the value of procurement
is rupees one lakh or more. The procuring entity
shall not exhibit the invitation to bid on the
State Public Procurement Portal, if it is of the
opinion that subject matter for procurement is
of nature specified in clause (e) or (h) of sub-
sec. (1) of Sec.31.
(b) The procuring entity may engage in
negotiations in good faith with the bidder.
(c) The single source may be selected out of the
list of empanelled/ registered bidders for the
subject matter of procurement with the
procuring entity or with any other procuring
entity, where procuring entity uses the list of
registered bidders of other procuring entity in
terms of sub-sec. (5) of Sec. 19 or suitable
bidders identified through other reliable sources.
(d) Bid security shall not be obtained in case of
single source procurement.
(e) Except as otherwise provided in this rule and
provisions of Chapter-V relating to pre-
qualification proceedings, bid security,
publication of Notice Inviting Bids in the news
papers, price of bidding documents, sale of
bidding documents, pre-bid clarifications,
exclusion of bids, comparison of rates of firms
outside and those in Rajasthan, price/purchase
preference in evaluation and dividing quantities
among more than one bidder at the time of
(Downloaded on 04/01/2025 at 12:28:06 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49565] (32 of 56) [CW-3567/2024]
award, all other provisions of Chapter-V shall
mutatis mutandis apply, but in case of matters
covered under sub-rule (1) performance security
shall not be obtained.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
rule (2), in the emergent situation arising out of
floods and other natural calamities, the subject
matter of procurement may be procured up to
the ceiling rates. The committee consisting of
the following, shall decide the ceiling rates for
subject matter of procurement on the basis of
rates received during the last six months or the
prevailing market rates analysis, namely:-
(a) District Collector – Chairman
(b) District level officer of the concerned
department – Member
(c) Treasury Officer – Member Secretary
(d) Special invitee, if required – Member”
47. In the same subject it is also noted that the minutes of
the meeting undersigned by the concerned authorities are also
furnished in a cursory manner, as the same are not
heralded/preceded by any agenda, numbered or tendering
justification qua the rationale so adopted. Nevertheless, the rules
of carrying out business and execution were violated. Form the
said action of the respondents it is prima facie assumed that the
engagement of IBPS is a sheer attempt to overshadow the lapses
violating the provisions of RTPP Act and allied provisions.
III) Whether MoU dated 04.10.2023 legally
admissible?
48. From a bare perusal of the said MoU dated 04.10.2023
it is noted that the same cannot be considered as admissible
evidence as the said document violates the provisions of the
Stamps Act, 1899, Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 and the Rajasthan
Stamp Rules, 2004. As per the provisions of Section 3 of the
(Downloaded on 04/01/2025 at 12:28:06 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49565] (33 of 56) [CW-3567/2024]
Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 read with the Schedule Serial no. 5,
agreements and memorandum of agreements fall under the
definition of ‘instruments’ and are henceforth liable to be executed
along with the requisite stamp duty or otherwise as per the
provisions of Section 39 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 the
same shall not be considered as admissible before the Court. The
relevant provisions is reproduced herein below:
“3. Instrument chargeable with duty – Subject to
the provisions of this Act and the exemptions
contained in the Schedule, the following instruments
shall be chargeable with duty of the amount indicated
in the Schedule as the proper duty therefore
respectively, that is to say,-
(a) every instrument mentioned in that Schedule,
which not having been previously executed by any
person, is executed in the State on or after the date of
commencement of this Act;
(b) every instrument mentioned in that Schedule,
which, not having been previously executed by any
person, is executed out of the State on or after the
said date, relates to any property situate, or to any
matter or thing done or to be done in the State and is
received in the State:
Provided that no duty shall be chargeable in respect
of, – (i) any instrument executed by or on behalf of, or
in favour of, the Government in cases where, but for
this exemption, the Government would be liable to pay
the duty chargeable in respect of such instrument;
(ii) any instrument for the sale, transfer or other
disposition, either absolutely or by way of mortgage or
otherwise, of any ship or vessel, or any part, interest,
share or property of or in any ship or vessel registered(Downloaded on 04/01/2025 at 12:28:06 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49565] (34 of 56) [CW-3567/2024]under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 (Act No. 44 of
1958), as amended by subsequent Acts.”
49. It is undisputed that the respondents who were parties
to the said MoU i.e. the RSPCB and IBPS have a stupendous legal
teams and counsel who have formulated and articulated the said
MoU on 04.10.2023 when the examination that is per se the
primary subject matter was advertised a day later on 05.10.2023.
It can be inferred that the undersigning parties to the said MoU
would have barely negotiated as per the terms and conditions of
the RTPP Act, and the provisions of the governing Stamp Act(s).
50. Thence, the said MoU cannot be considered as a
substantive piece of evidence as the same has not complied with
the provisions of the Stamps Act, the Rajasthan Stamps Act.
IV) Whether the instant selection process of direct
recruitment, conducted in a transparent, unbiased and
legal manner, sans any malice in law?
51. Albeit from the aforementioned discussions in
paragraph no. 37 to 40 of the instant judgment it is elucidated
that the direct recruitment in the matter in hand is valid; the
respondents sans stating any justification have ousted the
recruitment agencies/exam conducting authorities like RPSC,
RSSB, MNIT and other agencies.
52. Legal precedents affirm that the right to a fair and
impartial selection process is fundamental, irrespective of an
individual’s score. A transparent recruitment process safeguards
an individual’s interest and bolsters public confidence. The
ultimate goal of any recruitment examination is to secure the best
(Downloaded on 04/01/2025 at 12:28:06 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49565] (35 of 56) [CW-3567/2024]
and the most suitable person based on merit, tested impartially
and objectively.
53. It is also germane to note that the respondents have
bypassed the settled position of law and the directions spelled out
by Hon’ble Apex Court in the dictum of Harkirat Singh Ghuman
(Supra).
54. Accordingly, it can be deduced that at the drop of the
hat, the respondents have rushed to conclude the said selection
process and the same reflects the malice in law and violation of
provisions of RTPP Act and Article 309 of the Constitution of India
and other allied provisions. It is noted that no objections were
called by the respondents subsequent to the release of provisional
answer key, no proper rationale and explanations are tendered by
the expert committee, if so formulated. Therefore, the
respondents have failed to comply with the directions spelled out
in Harkirat Singh Ghuman (Supra) and Ramjit Singh Kardam
(Supra). Withal, there are certain disputed questions of facts
which cannot be dealt by this Court at this nascent juncture, while
exercising powers as a writ court.
V) Whether the petitioners are barred by the
principle of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence? Whether
the rules of game can be changed?
55. It is noted that the examination conducting authority
restrained them from coming up front with the fact that the said
examination was conducted by which examination agency.
Moreover, when the eligibility criteria for instance cut-off dates,
(Downloaded on 04/01/2025 at 12:28:06 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49565] (36 of 56) [CW-3567/2024]
scores etc. were not published at an appropriate juncture, it
cannot be expected that the candidate-petitioners will be barred
from assailing the said irregularities. Therefore, in the matter in
hand neither the doctrine of estoppel nor acquiescence can be
made applicable, as the impugned advertisement, conduct of the
authorities and the arguments mad insofar have made an
impression that the instant selection process was not conducted in
a transparent manner, concealing vital aspects of the examination.
56. In support of the said view, reliance is placed upon the
ratio encapsulated in Ramjit Singh Kardam (Supra):
“39. The above preposition has been reiterated in
other judgments of this Court noted above. In the
present case, whether the Respondents-writ
Petitioners are estopped from challenging the
selection? While noticing the facts of the case, we
have noted above that both Appellants and the
Respondents had submitted applications in pursuance
of advertisement dated 28.07.2006 No. 6/2006. In
advertisement, it was provided that the Commission
may shortlist the candidates for interview by holding
a written examination or on the basis of a rational
criteria to be adopted by the Commission. The
Commission on 28.12.2006 published the criteria for
calling the candidates for interview. Notice dated
28.12.2006 provided that written examination shall
be held for post of PTI on 21.01.2007, on 100
objective type multiple choice questions, each
question carrying two marks. The notification also
prescribed the minimum qualifying marks- 50% for
General category, SC BC and ESM 45% and 25%
marks was assigned to the viva voice. The above
criteria was implemented and written examination(Downloaded on 04/01/2025 at 12:28:06 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49565] (37 of 56) [CW-3567/2024]was conducted on 21.01.2007, which examination
was cancelled citing complaints regarding
malpractices in the written examination. Further
notice dated 11.06.2008 was published fixing
20.07.2008 for written examination as per criteria
earlier notified. Before the above examination could
take place, by public notice dated 30.06.2008, it was
cancelled. Another public notice dated 11.07.2008
was published where Commission decided to shortlist
eight times the candidates of the advertised post with
minimum weightage secured in each category. The
said shortlisting was also given up by notice dated
31.07.2009 when it was decided to call all eligible
candidates for interview. Commission did not
publish any criteria or marks on the basis of
which interview was to be held. The criteria,
which was published by the Commission on
28.12.2006, 11.06.2008 and 11.07.2008 were
given up step by step and no criteria was
published for interview, which was scheduled to
take place in from 2nd September to 17th
October, 2008. When Commission had not
published any criteria on the basis of which
candidates were going to be subjected for
selection process and the candidates
participated in the selection without knowing
the criteria of selection, they cannot be shut out
from challenging the process of selection when
ultimately they came to know that Commission
step by step has diluted the merit in selection.
When candidate is not aware of the criteria of
selection under which he was subjected in the process
and the said criteria for the first time is published
along with final result dated 10.04.2010, he cannot
be estopped from challenging the criteria of selection
and the entire process of selection. Further when the(Downloaded on 04/01/2025 at 12:28:06 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49565] (38 of 56) [CW-3567/2024]written examination as notified earlier was scrapped
and every eligible candidate was called for interview
giving a go bye to a fair and reasonable process for
shortlisting the candidates for interview, that too only
by Chairman of the Commission whereas decision
regarding criteria of selection has to be taken by
Commission, the candidates have every right to
challenge the entire selection process so conducted.
This Court in Raj Kumar and Ors. v. Shakti Raj and
Ors.: (1997) 9 SCC 527 held that when glaring
illegalities have been committed in the procedure to
get the candidates for examination, the principle of
estoppel by conduct or acquiescence has no
application. Referring to judgment of this Court’s
judgment in Madan Lal (supra), this Court laid down
following in paragraph 16:
16. …The entire procedure is also obviously illegal. It
is true, as contended by Shri Madhava Reddy, that
this Court in Madan Lal v. State of J & K,: (1995) 3
SCC 486 and other decisions referred therein had
held that a candidate having taken a chance to
appear in an interview and having remained
unsuccessful, cannot turn round and challenge either
the constitution of the Selection Board or the method
of selection as being illegal; he is estopped to
question the correctness of the selection. But in his
case, the Government have committed glaring
illegalities in the procedure to get the candidates for
examination under the 1955 Rules, so also in the
method of selection and exercise of the power in
taking out from the purview of the Board and also
conduct of the selection in accordance with the Rules.
Therefore, the principle of estoppel by conduct or
acquiescence has no application to the facts in this
case. Thus, we consider that the procedure offered
(Downloaded on 04/01/2025 at 12:28:06 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49565] (39 of 56) [CW-3567/2024]
under the 1955 Rules adopted by the Government or
the Committee as well as the action taken by the
Government are not correct in law.
40. One more judgment of this Court which supports
the view taken by the High Court is Bishnu Biswas
and Ors. Union of India and Ors.: (2014) 5 SCC 774.
An advertisement was published calling applications
for appointment to the post of Group D staff. The
Recruitment Rules only provided for a written
examination having 50 maximum marks. After
holding written examination notice was issued calling
the successful candidates for interview. Although such
interview was not part of the recruitment process, a
select list was published which was challenged in the
Tribunal. The Tribunal returned a finding that the
manner in which marks have been awarded in the
interview to the candidates indicated lack of
transparency. The High Court upheld the reasoning of
the Tribunal but modified the order to the extent of
continuing the recruitment process from the point it
stood vitiated. This Court laid down following in
paragraphs 19 and 20:
19. In the instant case, the Rules of the game
had been changed after conducting the written
test and admittedly not at the stage of initiation
of the selection process. The marks allocated for
the oral interview had been the same as for written
test i.e. 50% for each. The manner in which marks
have been awarded in the interview to the candidates
indicated lack of transparency. The candidate who
secured 47 marks out of 50 in the written test had
been given only 20 marks in the interview while a
large number of candidates got equal marks in the
interview as in the written examination. Candidate
who secured 34 marks in the written examination was
given 45 marks in the interview. Similarly, another(Downloaded on 04/01/2025 at 12:28:06 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49565] (40 of 56) [CW-3567/2024]candidate who secured 36 marks in the written
examination was awarded 45 marks in the interview.
The fact that today the so-called selected candidates
are not in employment, is also a relevant factor to
decide the case finally. If the whole selection is
scrapped most of the candidates would be ineligible at
least in respect of age as the advertisement was
issued more than six years ago.
20. Thus, in the facts of this case the direction of
the High Court to continue with the selection process
from the point it stood vitiated does not require
interference. In view of the above, the appeals are
devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed. No
costs.
41. The Division Bench of the High Court is right in its
conclusion that the selection criteria, which saw the
light of the day along with declaration of the selection
result could be assailed by the unsuccessful
candidates only after it was published. Similarly,
selection process which was notified was never
followed and the selection criteria which was followed
was never notified till the declaration of final result,
hence, the writ Petitioners cannot be estopped from
challenging the selection. We, thus, hold that the writ
petitions filed by the Petitioners could not have been
thrown on the ground of estoppel and the writ
Petitioners could very well challenge the criteria of
selection applied by the Commission, which was
declared by the Commission only at the time of
declaration of the final result. We, thus, answer point
Nos. 1 and 2 as follows:
(i) The writ Petitioners, who had participated in the
selection are not estopped from challenging the
selection in the facts of the present case.
(ii) The writ Petitioners could have very well
challenged the criteria of selection, which was(Downloaded on 04/01/2025 at 12:28:06 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49565] (41 of 56) [CW-3567/2024]declared by the Commission only in the final result
declared on 10.04.2010
54. As noted above the decision of Chairman of the
Commission dated 30.06.2008 not to hold the written
examination was claimed to have been taken due to
“administrative reasons”, but what were
“administrative reasons” have never been disclosed or
brought on record by the Commission. The decision to
change the selection process as notified on
28.06.2006 was a major decision not only affecting
the applicants who had to participate in the selection
on the basis of criteria as notified on 28.12.2006 but
had adverse effect on merit selection as devised for
1983 posts of PTI.
55. As per advertisement dated 20.07.2006, the
Commission had published the criteria for selection on
28.12.2006 which was implemented also, hence,
there was no occasion to give up the merit selection
in midway. Further, when no reasons are
forthcoming to support the so called
‘administrative reasons’ in the decision dated
30.06.2008 which was so stated by Chairman
for the scrapping the written test, we have to
hold the said decision arbitrary and without
reason. The written test consisting of 100 objective
type of multiple choice questions out of which 60
questions relating to academic knowledge of the
respective subjects including skill and method of
teaching ability and 40 questions relating to general
knowledge, general English and Hindi upto matric
standard was well thought screening test, easy to
conduct and easy to evaluate. The Commission being
recruiting body abdicated its obligation of screening
out the best candidates; The competitive
examination, are means by which equality of
opportunity was to be united with efficiency. By the
(Downloaded on 04/01/2025 at 12:28:06 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49565] (42 of 56) [CW-3567/2024]
above method favoritism was to be excluded and the
goal of securing the best man for the job was to be
achieved. We, thus, conclude that decision dated
30.06.2008 for not holding the written examination
and steps taken consequent thereto were all arbitrary
decisions, unsustainable in law.
57. We having held that change in criteria of selection
was never notified by the Commission and about the
change in process of selection candidates were kept in
total dark and for the first time the criteria applied in
selection process was published along with result
dated 10.04.2008, the writ Petitioners cannot be
estopped in challenging the arbitrary criteria so
applied. The submission of Shri Sibal cannot be
accepted. The Petitioners have never questioned the
criteria which was published on 28.12.2006 i.e.
written test of 200 marks and viva voice of 25 marks,
merely because they participated in the process of
selection after the change of criteria, their right to
challenge the arbitrary change cannot be lost.
Estopping the Petitioners from challenging the change
of criteria will be giving seal to arbitrary changes
affected by Chairman as noted above.”
(Emphasis laid)
57. Nevertheless, it is not denied that the respondent-IBPS
has an expertise in conducting examinations and provide technical
and infrastructural support for conduct of examinations through
online mode. The MoU signed inter-se between the respondent-
RSPCB and respondent-IBPS was signed primarily considering the
following factors:
(Downloaded on 04/01/2025 at 12:28:06 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49565] (43 of 56) [CW-3567/2024]
57.1 That the said examination was to be conducted via
online mode and for the same the instant MoU and the Standard
procedure of IBPS was idealistic.
57.2 That as per the directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court
and the National Green Tribunal the recruitment qua the vacant
posts under the said department was to be filled within the
stipulated time.
57.3 That IBPS in whilom circumstances had already
successfully conducted examinations for RVUN, RVPN, JVVN, AVVN
and others.
57.4 That the MNIT has not replied to the correspondence
dated 29.06.2022 sent by the RSPCB and RPSC was not available
on the said dates as per its calendar.
57.5 That the pay scale matrix qua which exams can be
conducted by the RPSC could not match the requisites required by
the respondent-RSPCB.
57.6 That the said engagement was made on Single Source
Procurement basis as per the provisions of Section 31 of the RTPP
Act.
57.7 That the said MoU was sent to the appropriate
authorities i.e. the Finance Department for ultimate sanction and
only after attaining the same, the respondent-IBPS was engaged.
58. The IBPS successfully conducted the said examination
on 09.01.2024 at various centers including in the Districts like
Jaipur, Jodhpur, Udaipur and Kota. In-between 22.02.2024 and
24.02.2024 the results were released and subsequently the
document verification was scheduled on 29.02.2024. Form the
(Downloaded on 04/01/2025 at 12:28:06 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49565] (44 of 56) [CW-3567/2024]said time-line it can be deduced that the said recruitment albeit
conducted with utmost cautiousness; was concluded in a grate
haste, probably to prevent leakage of any question papers or
crucial confidential data.
59. Further, reliance can be placed upon the ratio passed by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2634/2013 titled as
Tej Prakash & Ors. vs. the Rajasthan High Court & Ors. and
Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another reported
in (2008) 3 SCC 512; wherein it is categorically opined that the
rules of the games cannot be changed once the concerned
examination/ recruitment process has already commenced.
60. Considering the observations noted herein above it can
be deduced that the writ petitioners and the instant batch of
petitions are not hit by the principles of estoppel, waiver and
acquiescence as the petitioner-candidates had approached the
Court within appropriate time and no lapses are identified in the
conduct of the petitioners which bars/estopps them.
61. It can also be inferred that when the examination
authority has failed to publish any criteria moreover, the
candidates had a legitimate expectation that the respondents
would follow the settled position of conducting recruitment
examination. Thence, the candidates cannot be obstructed from
assailing the recruitment process and the same shall not be
restricted by the doctrine of estoppel. To substantiate the said
view this Court deems it apposite to place reliance upon the
judgment enunciated in Meeta Sahai Vs. the State of Bihar
(Downloaded on 04/01/2025 at 12:28:06 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49565] (45 of 56) [CW-3567/2024]and Ors. registered as Civil Appeal No. 9482 of 2019 :
judgment dated 17.12.2019.
AUXILIARY FINDINGS
62. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had
averred that the said MoU and engagement of IBPS as an exam
conducting authority was brought to their notice at a relatively
belated stage. At this stance, it is noted that the said MoU was not
duly stamped as per the provisions of the Rajasthan Stamp Act,
1998, the Stamp Act, 1899 and the Rajasthan Stamp Rules, 2004.
63. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment dated
09.08.2011 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Central Board
of Secondary Education Vs. Aditya Bandopadhayay
registered as Civil Appeal No. 6454/2011, wherein it was held
that the scope of RTI Act shall be made applicable upon the
question papers of public employment.
64. At this nascent juncture, taking note of the issues qua
the applicability of the provisions of RTI Act, and the standards
which are ought to be followed while conducting any public
examination, this Court deems it apposite to place reliance upon
the ratio enunciated in Harkirat Singh Ghuman (Supra).
“20. So far as the objection with regard to his
application submitted under the Right to Information
Act, 2005 is concerned, learned Counsel submits that
the marks of the written examination could not be
made available until the process of selection is
finalised and that was the reason which was
communicated to him by the Public Information(Downloaded on 04/01/2025 at 12:28:07 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49565] (46 of 56) [CW-3567/2024]Officer (PIO) by a communication dated 6th January,
2020 taking recourse to Rule 4(2) of the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana (Right to Information) Rules,
2007 and, if at all, he is aggrieved by the
communication made dated 6th January, 2020,
inbuilt mechanism has been provided under the
Right to Information Act, 2005 and even if the
marks are not made available, it would, in no
manner, defeat the process of selection held by
the Respondents.
26. That all the candidates who had appeared in
Paper VI (General Knowledge) had a common level
playing field and in the absence of any material on
record in rebuttal, the submission is not sustainable
and deserves rejection. But to keep transparency in
the process of holding examination, particularly in
such cases where there is a multiple-choice question
paper, it is always advisable that for such
question papers, there shall always be an OMR
sheet which may be provided to the candidates
so that the question paper can be retained by
each of the participants and after the
examination is held, a provisional answer key is
to be uploaded inviting objections from the
candidates who had participated in the selection
process, to be furnished within a reasonable
time and after collating such objections, the
same be placed before a subject expert
committee to be constituted by the
recruiting/competent authority and after the
report is submitted by the subject expert
committee, the same be examined by the
recruiting authority and thereafter the final
answer key is to be uploaded. We make it clear
that no presumption is to be drawn that the result has
to be declared, but at least the candidates may be(Downloaded on 04/01/2025 at 12:28:07 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49565] (47 of 56) [CW-3567/2024]provided the final answer keys to enable them to
make their own assessment. This is one of the
mechanisms by which fairness and transparency
which is a sine qua non in the public
employment can be resorted to.”
(Emphasis laid)
65. Additionally reliance can be placed upon the dictum
encapsulated in Kanpur University (Supra).
“15. The findings of the High Court raise a question of
great importance to the student community.
Normally, one would be inclined to the view,
especially if one has been a paper setter and an
examiner, that the key answer furnished be the
paper setter and accepted by the University as
correct, should not be allowed to be challenged.
One way of achieving it is not to publish the key
answer at all. If the University had not published the
key answer along with the result of the test, no
controversy would have arisen in this case. But that is
not a correct way of looking at these matters which
involve the future of hundreds of students who are
aspirants for admission to professional courses. If
the key answer were kept secret in this case,
the remedy would have been worse than the
disease because, so many students would have
had to suffer the injustice in silence. The
publication of the key answer has unravelled an
happy state of affairs to which the University and the
State Government must find a solution. Their sense of
fairness in publishing the key answer has given them
an opportunity to have a closer look at the system of
examinations which they conduct. What has failed is
not the computer but the human system.”
(Downloaded on 04/01/2025 at 12:28:07 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49565] (48 of 56) [CW-3567/2024]
(Emphasis laid)
66. Withal, reliance is also placed upon the dictum
encapsulated in Rishal and Ors. (Supra).
“18. The key answers prepared by the paper-setter or
the examining body is presumed to have been
prepared after due deliberations. To err is human.
There are various factors which may lead to
framing of the incorrect key answers. The
publication of key answers is a step to achieve
transparency and to give an opportunity to
candidates to assess the correctness of their
answers. An opportunity to file objections against
the key answers uploaded by examining body is a
step to achieve fairness and perfection in the process.
The objections to the key answers are to be examined
by the experts and thereafter corrective measures, if
any, should be taken by the examining body. In the
present case we have noted that after considering the
objections final key answers were published by the
Commission thereafter several writ petitions were
filed challenging the correctness of the key answers
adopted by the Commission. The High Court repelled
the challenge accepting the views of the experts. The
candidates still unsatisfied, have come up in this
Court by filing these appeals.”
(Emphasis laid)
67. From the afore-relied upon ratios it can be deduced
that to maintain transparency in the public employment especially
where multiple choice question-answer pattern is followed, the
question papers should be provided to the candidates after the
conclusion of the said examination; provisional/model answer key
should be released; objections should be called; expert committee
(Downloaded on 04/01/2025 at 12:28:07 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49565] (49 of 56) [CW-3567/2024]
should be constituted and reasonable explanation and justification
should be tendered to the dubious questions; and only after
following the said procedure the final answer key should be
released. Nonetheless, it is noteworthy that under the garb of
technicalities, the said procedure is not followed in the impugned
recruitment process.
68. That the advertisement dated 05.10.2023 in Part B
clause no. 11 has categorically stated that the provisions of RTI
Act shall not be applicable upon the instant recruitment process
during its currency. Moreover, the same resultant to the terms and
conditions of the MoU dated 04.10.2023. The relevant extract
from the same is reproduced herein below:
^^HkrhZ izfd;k yfEcr jgus ds nkSjku lwpuk ds vf/kdkj vf/kfu;e] 2005 ds
rgr fdlh Hkh izdkj dh lwpuk HkrhZ izfd;k iwjh gksus rd miyC/k ugha
djkok;h tk;sxhA HkrhZ izfd;k iwjh gksus ij okafNr lwpuk fu;ekuqlkj
miyC/k djk;h tk ldsxhA**MoU dated 04.10.2023.
“As per IBPS policy, the test papers are not disclosed
to anybody other than the candidates only during the
examination. The test papers are also not shared with
anybody even after the examination(s). In case of any
dispute, IBPS shall provide the ad seriatim responses
of aggrieved candidates, if any and the corresponding
right answers.
In case RSPCB requiring to comply with statutory
requirements under RTI Act, IBPS will make available
dump of responses(answers marked by the
candidate/right answer key for objective tests/papers
only) to facilitate RSPCB to reply the same.”
(Downloaded on 04/01/2025 at 12:28:07 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49565] (50 of 56) [CW-3567/2024]
69. It is noteworthy that the vide letter dated 13.03.2024
undersigned by the Deputy General Manager (Admin/Legal) the
respondent-IBPS had apprised/replied to the respondent-RSPCB
vis-a-vis the letter dated 12.03.2024 (received via e-mail) and has
admitted that as per the MoU and the contents of intellectual
property of IBPS, the said exam conducting authority does not
display the data stored with it, to any authority apart from the
necessary data it required for adjudication of any dispute. Upon a
perusal of the said letter it is also noted that therein, it was
categorically noted that “there is no requirement of publishing or
calling objections after examination”.
I. CONCLUSION
70. In summation of the aforementioned this Court takes it
upon itself to reiterate the following key takeaways:
70.1 That upon a perusal of the MoU dated 04.10.2023 and
the letter dated 13.03.2024 it can be inferred that the provisions
of the RTI Act, 2005 were surpassed and bypassed by the
respondents;
70.2 That as per the consensus drawn in-between the
parties (by MoU dated 04.10.2023), IBPS was engaged as the
exam conducting authority for the recruitment vis-a-vis
advertisement dated 05.10.2023 (pertinent to note that the MoU
was signed just a day precedent to the issuance of the said
advertisement);
(Downloaded on 04/01/2025 at 12:28:07 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49565] (51 of 56) [CW-3567/2024]
70.3 That the respondent-RSPCB chose to engage IBPS
instead of RPSC, RSSB or MNIT considering the vital aspects of the
said examination;
70.4 That the mode of recruitment adopted herein as per the
provisions of Rules and Regulations of 1993 more particularly Rule
18 was direct recruitment and the same is permissible as it falls
under the ambit of “In such other manner as may be deemed fit”;
70.5 That the respondent-RSCPB falls under the ambit of
Section 3 of the RTPP Act and sine qua non the provisions of
Sections 17 and 18 of the RTPP Act and Rule 17 of the RTPP Rules,
the respondents initiated Single Source Procurement under
Section 31(h) sans tendering any rationale or administrative
reasons;
70.6 That it is stated that in compliance with the directions
of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the National Green Tribunal, the
respondents were in a haste to culminate the said recruitment;
70.7 That the proper manner i.e. issuance of model answer
key, inviting of objections, constitution of experts committee and
issuance of final answer key was not followed in the instant
recruitment process, and the same has violated the fundamental
rights of the petitioners as enshrined under the provisions of
Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India;
70.8 That the writ petitioners are not barred by the
principles of acquiescence, estoppel and waiver;
70.9 That as the MoU dated 04.10.2023 is not appropriately
stamped and the same falls under the ambit of Section 3 of the
(Downloaded on 04/01/2025 at 12:28:07 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49565] (52 of 56) [CW-3567/2024]
Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1988, the same cannot be considered as
admissible evidence in Court;
70.10 That albeit the confidentiality of the said examination
was maintained, an efficacious, transparent manner as per the
ratio encapsulated in Harkirat Singh Ghuman (Supra) was not
followed. Moreover, the rules of business were also bypassed
along with the provisions of Articles 309-311 of the Constitution of
India and the legitimate expectation that is drawn as per Articles
14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
70.11 That the vide letter dated 13.03.2024 undersigned by
the Deputy General Manager (Admin/Legal) the respondent-IBPS
has apprised/replied to the respondent-RSPCB vis-a-vis the letter
dated 12.03.2024 (received via e-mail) and has admitted that as
per the MoU and the contents of intellectual property of IBPS, the
said exam conducting authority does not display the data stored
with it, to any authority apart from the necessary data it required
for adjudication of any dispute. Therefore, the provisions of RTI
Act were surpassed.
71. Therefore, in light of the foregoing facts and
circumstances this Court has precisely formulated that once a
committee is formulated as per the provisions of Rule 26 of the
Rules and Regulations of 1993, the present mechanism of direct
recruitment through respondent-IBPS is valid and unerring; that
albeit the engagement of IBPS as an exam conducting authority is
valid, respondents have erred by not following the inter alia
provisions of Rule 17 of the RTPP Rules, 2013, Section 17 and 18
(Downloaded on 04/01/2025 at 12:28:07 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49565] (53 of 56) [CW-3567/2024]
of the RTPP Act and Article 309-311 of the Constitution of India;
by signing the MoU in closed doors sans publishing it/bringing it to
the public notice within the stipulated period, moreover, the said
MoU is an inadmissible piece of evidence as it is improperly
stamped, hence is in violation of the Rajasthan Stamps Act; by not
following the due procedure as per the advisory guidelines
formulated in the dictum encapsulated in Harkirat Singh
Ghuman (Supra) and Ramjit Singh Kardam (Supra) and
conducting the said recruitment examination in a non-transparent
and unfair manner, bypassing the rules of business and execution;
by not rendering requisite clarification qua the ‘administrative
reasons’ due to which the said recruitment was initiated under
provisions of Section 31(h) of RTPP Act despite the fact that the
respondent-RSPCB falls under the ambit of the provisions of
Section 3 of the RTPP Act. It is also noted that in a hastiness to
culminate the said recruitment examination and to create third
party rights respondents have within a short-span of time have
issued the appointment letters qua approximately 96 candidates
sans calling nay objections qua the disputed questions.
J. DIRECTIONS
72. Considering the fact that the matter in hand is one of
the exceptional situations wherein, the petitioners who have
scored much less than the cut-off marks under their respective
categories have alleged that the instant recruitment process was
initiated and culminated dehors the settled position of law and the
usage that is followed from a period this Court after diligently
(Downloaded on 04/01/2025 at 12:28:07 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49565] (54 of 56) [CW-3567/2024]
scanning the records and taking note of the fact that as on date
the impugned recruitment examination is already over and a
number of candidates are working as probation trainees at their
respective place of postings, deems to apposite to jot down the
following directions:
72.1 The examination/recruitment supervising authority, the
respondent-RSPCB and the respodnent-IBPS are directed to carry
out the selection process, strictly in accordance with law and as
per the ratio held in paragraph no. 26 of the judgment titled as
Harkirat Singh Ghuman (Supra). For the sake of brevity the
relevant extract/directions from the afore-cited ratio is reproduced
herein below:
26. That all the candidates who had appeared in
Paper VI (General Knowledge) had a common level
playing field and in the absence of any material on
record in rebuttal, the submission is not sustainable
and deserves rejection. But to keep transparency in
the process of holding examination, particularly in
such cases where there is a multiple-choice question
paper, it is always advisable that for such
question papers, there shall always be an OMR
sheet which may be provided to the candidates
so that the question paper can be retained by
each of the participants and after the
examination is held, a provisional answer key is
to be uploaded inviting objections from the
candidates who had participated in the selection
process, to be furnished within a reasonable
time and after collating such objections, the
same be placed before a subject expert
committee to be constituted by the(Downloaded on 04/01/2025 at 12:28:07 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49565] (55 of 56) [CW-3567/2024]recruiting/competent authority and after the
report is submitted by the subject expert
committee, the same be examined by the
recruiting authority and thereafter the final
answer key is to be uploaded. We make it clear
that no presumption is to be drawn that the result has
to be declared, but at least the candidates may be
provided the final answer keys to enable them to
make their own assessment. This is one of the
mechanisms by which fairness and transparency
which is a sine qua non in the public
employment can be resorted to.”
(Emphasis laid)
72.2 The direction mentioned in paragraph no. 72.1 shall be
complied with and concluded within an upper limit of two months
from the date of passing of this judgment.
72.3 The candidates who are already selected; were allotted
appointment letters and are working as probation trainees shall
not be bound to refund any amount qua the salary or other
benefits. No recovery proceedings shall be initiated against the
said probation trainees. The said probation trainees will be
rendering services undisturbed, till unbiased outcome of the
instant recruitment is released as per the directions noted herein
however, it is made clear that the services of the said candidates
shall not be confirmed till the unbiased outcome of the instant
recruitment, as per the directions of this Court is released.
72.4 Upon conducting the said exercise, a fresh merit list
shall be prepared and if any meritorious students (from the instant
writ petitioners) are found eligible the benefits granted to the
probation trainees shall be made applicable qua the fresh
(Downloaded on 04/01/2025 at 12:28:07 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49565] (56 of 56) [CW-3567/2024]
meritorious candidates from retrospective date along with the
consequential benefits.
72.5 It is made clear that if the directions noted herein are
not complied within the stipulated period, the entire selection
process vis-a-vis advertisement dated 05.10.2023 shall be
declared null and void.
73. In light of the foregoing facts and circumstances, the
instant bath of petitions is disposed of with the aforementioned
directions. No order is made as to costs. Pending applications, if
any, shall stand disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
Pooja /162-173
(Downloaded on 04/01/2025 at 12:28:07 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)